ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (sir_toejam @ May 19 2006,00:05) | eric, just for kicks, could you put a number on the percentage expectation you realistically have of him ever addressing the evidence for the age of the earth?
if it were me, I'd put the figure somewhere around 4%, slightly below standard level of significance. |
Hmm…I guess I didn't ever think he'd be able to provide affirmative evidence that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. So I'd have to give that the ol' goose egg.
But I was hoping at least to hear his arguments why that planet-sized mass of evidence (or maybe a bit of it, anyway) in favor of an earth billions of years old is wrong. That might have been entertaining. But now it looks like he's never even going to address the issue. So far he's spent all his time stumbling over his own penis talking about genetics (something he knows less about than even I do), and trying to persuade us all that god exists before he gets around to showing us what he thinks is evidence for anything else.
Given the pounding he's taken so far talking about evidence that's a good deal less conclusive, I'd have to say your estimate is probably on the high side. Maybe 2%, with a 2% margin or error?
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
